DHECC - Freeh takes a page from the PSC handbook and asks to hide behind Barbier's robe

Louis Freeh has just filed a motion to dismiss Christine Reitano's defamation suit against him and the Freeh Group.

Reitano was falsely accused by Freeh of helping her husband, Lionel Sutton, expedite a claim in the DHECC which he purportedly had a financial interest in per a referral fee arrangement with the Andry Lerner law firm.

I have no doubt Judge Barbier will dismiss the suit but I want to point out a major fallacy in Freeh's current motion and its implications:

"In her Complaint, Reitano emphasizes that the September 2013 Report was made available on the Internet. See Comp. at 4 (“The defendants began their damage to Ms. Reitano in September, 2013, by publishing on the internet . . . .”);  5 (“The defendants published a report on the internet . . . .”);  13 (“The defendants published their accusations on the internet to be sure that the broadcast of the accusations was of the widest proportions.”). Yet that act does not place the Special Master outside the protection of absolute judicial immunity. After all, federal district court case filings are widely available on the Internet as a matter of course through the PACER electronic filing system. Filings on the MDL docket are electronically shared with hundreds of people by email with every filing.Further, public distribution of the Report was important to fulfilling the Court’s mandate to the Special Master of ensuring the integrity of the CSSP by assuring claimants of the validity and fairness of the process for distributing billions of dollars held in trust for the benefit of those harmed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster. See Doc. Rec. 10564 at 2 (appointing the Special Master to “ensure the integrity of [the CSSP] for the benefit of the parties and the public”); Order & Reasons at 22 (noting that fraud against the CSSP concerned “issues of great moment to the public” and “involve[d] far more than an injury to a single litigant”); http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm (posting the Report on the judicial website established to keep the public informed on the Deepwater Horizon MDL). Nothing about Internet publication changes the application of an absolute judicial immunity for Freeh and FGIS."

The issue is not that it was published on Pacer or as a public court document, the issue is that Louis Freeh ran the report up the flagpole on his own private company's website, The Freeh Group and Pepper Hamilton. There it stayed for months, basically as an advertisement for Freeh's wonderful investigation technics (which we now know were devastatingly erroneous and fatal to Reitano's reputation).  Inspector Clouseau and team later figured out it probably wasn't such a good idea to be waving this thing around as an example of their work and hence took the report down.

By doing this, Freeh removed the report from the confines of the U.S. Court system and brought it into the private arena.  He did this, no doubt, to enterprise on the international media exposure and hullabaloo the report had created due to BP's massive PR machine using the allegations within it to paint Reitano, Sutton and Andry Lerner as examples of a corrupt settlement.

Freeh, himself, was the one who took the report outside the confines of the court for his own private gain....now he wants to hide behind Barbier's robe?  Priceless.

This is called justice?  You can destroy an innocent woman's life with a slipshod investigation and then shirk responsibility by claiming indemnity under the protection of the court?

Think about the fucking precedent this sets.

As I stated before, The Freeh Group is essentially acting as a white-collar Blackwater....a private company being paid obscene amounts of cash to conduct public investigations on behalf of the U.S. Courts.  If this private company had a vested interest, a corporate interest, in destroying the reputation of a private individual, a competing company....basically anyone they wish....they can do so with full immunity provided by the federal government.  Hell...these guys are ten times worse than Blackwater....they're government-shielded character assassins.

Unfortunately, we're most likely about to watch Barbier rubber stamp this chimera into existence.

For more background on the Freeh Group and Pepper Hamilton's connections with BP:

American Zombie: DHECC - Freeh's interests may not be so free

DHECC - would the real Pat Juneau please stand up?

Yesterday, BP filed an appeal in the 5th Circuit in respect to their original motion to remove Patrick Juneau as Claims Adminstrator of the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center.  The motion was denied by Judge Carl Barbier.

The appeal cites Juneau's conflict of interests which he failed to disclose upon being interviewed for the claims administrator position.  It also singles out his involvement in the Omega Protein claim where he lobbied Kenneth Feinberg, former head of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, to pay out a $45 million dollar claim (the largest payout in the history of the settlement to date) to a Houston-based company, Omega Protein.

Juneau also billed the state of Louisiana for the time he spent lobbying for this non-Louisiana based corporation...which should constitute payroll fraud to the state of Louisiana.

The appeal offers a few more details on the Omega claim than we (AZ readers and the public) were previously aware of such as the fourth item on page 38:

"Appellees downplay Mr. Juneau's advocacy for an individual claimant by asserting that Mr. Juneau was "merely inquiring" about the claim (Omega Protein).  Class-Br. 35; Juneau Br. 52-53.  The evidence refutes that characterization.  Mr. Juneau pressed Mr. Feinberg to contact the claimant's president, and peppered Mr. Feinberg with urgent emails until Mr. Feinberg finally informed him the claim had been paid.  At a minimum, discovery would be warranted into the nature of Mr. Juneau's intervention with this, and potentially other, claims."

This has echoes of the Corps Constructors claim.  In Juneau's response to the motion to remove him, he addressed the Corps Constructors issue on page 31 as follows:

"Also, despite characterizing Mr. Sutton's credibility as "certainly questionable", BP relies on his statements in the ""American Zombie" interview to allege that Mr. Juneau wrongfully expedited the claims of a friend's son.  The CSSP and Mr Juneau receive numerous calls from claimants who feel their claims are taking longer than they expected.  The program always has tried to respond to these inquiries, but not with the object of improperly expediting a claim."

Sounds nice but HE DID EXPEDITE THIS CLAIM.  It's not simply an issue of taking phone calls from claimants about the status of their claims or inquiring to Brown and Greer about the current status of a claim (as he stated he was doing with Omega and Feinberg).....he actually had Lionel Sutton tell Brown and Greer to expedite this claim.  There's a world of difference between checking on a claim and moving it out of its place in a queue.

DHECC - Lionel Sutton Interview Series - Corps Constructors 1 from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Juneau's explanation regarding Corps Constructors is as opaque as his explanation regarding Omega appears to be.

There are so many non-answers in Juneau's response, it's laughable.  Particularly his Corps Constructors excuse but also his excuse for lying under oath to Special Master Louis Freeh regarding his previous involvement with the settlement process.  This recent appeal calls that perjury issue out as well.  

On page 5 of Juneau's response he also claims in his position as the special master/claims administrator that he is not a "justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States".  He stated to BP and the Court, that he had no judicial power or authority.  This recent appeal counters that assertion on many different levels but I want to point out something the appeal fails to mention.

In Christine Reitano's breech of contract suit against the DHECC for her termination, Pat Juneau claimed quasi-judicial immunity in Judge Barbier's court which places him squarely in the role as a court official.   Item number 9, page 3:

9. As Claims Administrator of the Court Supervised Settlement Program, Mr. Juneau enjoys quasi-judicial immunity for his actions taken as Claims Administrator, and he intends to raise the federal defense.  See Young v. Selsky, 41 F.3d 47, 51 (2d Cir. 1994) (quasi-judicial immunity has been extended to individuals who perform duties "closely associated with the judicial process" and who "perform tasks that are inextricably intertwined with the judicial process.")

This argument was made in Reitano's case as both a reason to move the case from state to federal court (Barbier's court where the case was stayed and put in a black hole) and also to provide immunity for Juneau from being deposed.  But with BP, Juneau is now arguing he has no judicial title or powers and can't be held to that standard.

Judge Barbier, himself, even told Lionel Sutton in open court that lying to Juneau was the same as lying to the Court.  Here are Barbier's exact words from the last hearing:

"'A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact to a law or tribunal.'  Well, Mr. Juneau may not be technically a tribunal, but he is a Court-appointed claims administrator.  And as far as I"m concerned, if a lawyer, particularly a lawyer who is working for him, makes a false statement to my Court-appointed claims administrator, as Mr. Sutton has admitted he made on several occasions, that's the same as making a false statement to the Court."

This is a clear violation of the rules of professional conduct to argue opposite positions in the same case under the same set of facts...otherwise known as a positional conflict.  Both Barbier and Juneau appear to have done exactly this, or at least Juneau argued and Barbier accepted the argument.

I wonder where they went to law school.

I suppose you can put your judge hat on when it's convenient then take it off when it's not?  Like over appz and entrees?

DHECC - BP files for McGladrey Reports

The BP attorney, who drafted the scathing letter detailing how the Claims Office spent 14 million with auditing firm McGladrey, LLP and then buried their work has filed a motion to the Judge Barbier's court to force the office to produce the audit(s).  

Here is Don Haycraft's motion (in segments/exhibits):

Main motion, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Some of those exhibits are funny because you clearly see how hard some of our local MSM entities are shilling for Juneau and the PSC.  

I don't think there's any damn way Barbier can justify keeping these audits buried considering BP paid 14 million for them.  If he does deny the motion it would be the most blatant attempt to cover up Juneau and the PSC's misgivings yet.

But if that audit is as damning as I've heard it is, I'm sure Juneau bought the Judge a strong aperitif at Annunciation and pleaded with him to keep the cat in the bag.

On a side note, I've been super busy in the past week and I haven't had time to really go through the IBM zombie stalking report enough to comment on it.  Juneau also filed his response to BP's motion to remove him and I was only able to skim that but I want to comment on it as well.  Hopefully I will have some time this week to get 'er done. 

DHECC - An ex parte "partey"

Isn't this quaint?  Right after a hearing Judge Carl Barbier held yesterday about Act 495, he and Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan decided to wind down at Annunciation restaurant in New Orleans' Warehouse District with none other than DHECC Claims Administrator Pat Juneau.



Yeah...you know Pat...the guy BP is asking to have removed from the settlement...the guy that perjured himself in a deposition taken under Barbier's court...the guy who allowed PSC members to expedite their own claims ahead of everyone else in the settlement.

I wonder who footed the bill on this one; I seriously doubt they went dutch.

Better yet, I wonder if it was expensed to the Claims Office.  Must be nice to be so cozy with the judge who's responsible for deciding your fate.  Fortuna has certainly shone her light upon Mr. Juneau.

Who knows?  Maybe they were just discussing the Saints' problems with the pass rush....or Mary Landrieu's keg stander...or whatever Emeril was bitching at Obama about...or where you can get cheap Viagra online.

I'm certainly unsure they never once discussed the settlement.

Hey, what was that whole fuss Freeh brought up about "unclean hands" and the mere appearance of impropriety?

Ah never mind.....I hear the fried oysters are to die for at Annunciation.  The BBQ shrimp will certainly leave one with unclean hands.  

DHECC - Samples? Possibly....Random? Not likely.

Last Friday I received a tip from an anon that the blacked-out claim on the email from PSC attorney Calvin Fayard to Christine Reitano is for a company called Fab-Worx in Hammond, LA.  This is of great importance because Fab-Worx just happens to be owned by Fayard's cousin and business partner in multiple businesses, Robert A. Maurin, III.

While I haven't been able find any direct ownership on Fayard's part with Fab-Worx, the company name has multiple filings with the Louisiana Secretary of State and I'm unable to ascertain which company with "Fab-worx" in the name may have filed a claim with the DHECC.

There is a Hammond-based Fab-Worx Holding, LLC that was registered in 2011 which would put the company's incorporation date after the Deepwater Horizon accident and nullify their ability to file a claim but then there is another filing called Fab-Worx Properties, L.l.C., that was registered from a Baton Rouge location in 2008.

I am slowly uncovering multiple business ventures between Calvin Fayard and Robert Maurin, as well as ventures between his daughter and lawyer at his firm, Caroline Fayard, and Maurin.

The fact that Fayard had this particular claim expedited calls into question Patrick Juneau's explanation that the claims listed in the email chain were being used as part of a "sampling program".  If that's the case, and this blacked-out claim is indeed Fab-Worx, then we can assume the "samples" chosen were not random.  Unless Fayard randomly plucked his cousin's claim out of a hat.

Last night I faxed the following letter to Special Master Louis Freeh asking him to please investigate this matter while cc'ing the Court, Fayard and other various legal entities:

Special Master Louis Freeh,

Hello, my name is Jason Berry and I am the investigative journalist who authors The American Zombie blog here in New Orleans, La.  As you may know, I have been writing about issues that have occurred within the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center since it’s inception, particularly specific members of the attorneys appointed as class counsel to the settlement, the Plaintiff Steering Committee.  

Recently, I posted a report based on information I anonymously received in the mail that confirmed an allegation I have been researching for over a year that the PSC members had expedited their own claims ahead of other class members’ claims with the knowledge and consent of the the Claims Administrator, Patrick Juneau.  

Upon publishing the story, Mr. Juneau replied to the me via email with the following explanation:

“In response to your recent inquiry, we thought that you should be made aware of the actual facts. In the fall of 2012 the DHECC Program was fast approaching the fairness hearing and the opt-out deadline.  To avoid confusion as to who should opt-out versus who should stay in the class, it was important for the class as a whole to have a representative sample of paid claims across all of the claim types in order for them to assess which was the better path forward for them.  This could not be accomplished in the time required using the first-in/first-out (FIFO) method outlined in the Settlement Agreement, which method had been used for the summer of 2012, because many of the claims were incomplete and therefore not ready for processing.

After discussion with the Court, BP and the PSC, it was determined that a larger number of claims should be examined before the fairness hearing so that the Court, the parties, objectors and claimants could see how the settlement program was working.  As noted above, since the program had encountered problems with a lot of the claims not having complete documentation it was difficult to come up with claims that could be analyzed and determined, so a sample of sufficiently documented claims was needed.

The Claims Administrator, with the knowledge and input of the PSC and BP, asked the PSC to provide a listing of such cases and a sampling was taken of those cases.  This action had nothing to do with trying to expedite a claim for any particular attorney or party. Pursuant to that request, claims were submitted, a sampling taken and determinations were made, and those results were made available to the Court and the parties at the time of the fairness hearing.  During this same time frame some of the objectors were taking the position that in order to be able to determine whether or not to opt out, they needed to see at the time of the fairness hearing a determination on the type of claims they were handling.  We therefore took samples of claims from the several of the objectors and made determinations which were also available at the time of the fairness hearing.  It is interesting to note that over 60% of the claims that were considered were not represented by the PSC. 

The issues as they stood at that time and the above outline of facts are supported by the e-mails recently made public which were subject to confidentiality.”

I have since filed a request (enclosed) with Mr. Juneau to provide me with the following:

“In the spirit of transparency of the claims process to the public it serves, I once again implore that you please provide me with a copy of (or the court record document number to) all orders, minute entries, and transcripts of each hearing, conference and telephone call (including conference calls) between and among you, the Administrator, and/or anyone on behalf of the DHECC or CAO, the PSC, BP representatives, and most importantly the Court, for each “discussion” you referenced in your response to my story.”

I subsequently contacted representatives from BP to verify that they were aware of the expedited claims.   BP’s Head of Communications Geoff Morrell replied to Mr. Juneau’s comments with the following comment:

“BP was aware of efforts by the Claims Administrator in the Fall of 2012 to get the CSSP up and running, including how to make the claims process more efficient and, correspondingly, increase the amount of claim payments in advance of the final approval hearing in November 2012.

However, there are other aspects of your blog postings -- including the e-mails from PSC members to the Claims Administrator you present -- that BP was not aware of, but  we are concerned about them and are trying to look into them now.”

Judging from Mr. Morrell’s response, it appears BP may not have been aware that the PSC attorneys and Mr. Juneau had expedited their own claims as part of the suggested “sampling program”.

Since writing this story, another matter has been brought to my attention which I believe is great cause for concern regarding the ethical matters of the expedited claims.  I have been told that the claim Mr. Calvin Fayard had expedited in the email, with Mr. Juneau’s knowledge and consent, may have been for a construction (it may not be construction depending on which company filed the claim) company owned by Mr. Juneau’s (I made this mistake in the original letter but sent a corrective letter shortly after) Mr Fayard's cousin,  Robert A. Maurin, III.  The company’s name is called Fab-Worx  and is based in Hammond, LA.  

Here is the email which details the request to expedite the claim:

Please note, there is no mention of a “sampling process” in this email exchange nor have I been able to find any mention of this process in the Fairness Hearing transcript which occurred in November of 2012, one month after the above email exchange.

As a reporter, I do not have access to claimant information and as the claim number was blacked out in the documents I received, I have no way of verifying if the above claim was indeed for Fab-Worx.  

However, you do have that access as a Special Master and investigator of the DHECC.  You also have access to the above email and the other emails I posted in my original story which can be found at the following URL:

http://www.theamericanzombie.com/2014/03/dhecc-proof-positive-of-claims-being.html

I believe this issue is of the utmost importance in respect to your ongoing investigation into alleged improprieties within the Claims Office.  If a PSC attorney was expediting his own relative’s claims above the rest of the class claims this is a clear violation of the laws of the settlement as dictated by Judge Carl J. Barbier:

“New claims may be filed during the Transition Process until such time as the Court Supervised Claims Program is established and operational as set forth above. New claims submitted shall be processed and evaluated in the order they are received. Non-deficient claims previously pending with the GCCF shall be processed and evaluated prior to any new claims filed after the creation of the Transition Process.”

The fact that this may have been a nepotistic effort for Mr. Fayard to enrich his own relative and possibly even himself by expediting his cousin’s claim is of profound importance to the public.  I believe the matter deserves investigation on your part to ensure  the claims process is being run equitably.  I trust you will pursue this matter as vigorously as you did the Thonn claim which involved the Andry Lerner Law Firm, Lionel Sutton, and Christine Reitano.  

In order to help your investigation, I have obtained some documents from the Louisiana Secretary of State database that show joint business ventures between Mr. Calvin Fayard and his cousin, Mr. Robert A. Maurin, III.  I also have found business relationships between Calvin Faryard’s daughter and member of his law firm, Caroline Fayard, and  Mr. Maurin.  I am enclosing these business filings:

Fab-Worx business filings:

Wiliston Oil and Gas (joint venture between Robert Maurin and Calvin Fayard):

Safari Investments (joint venture between Robert Maurin and Caroline Fayard):

I trust this information will help you in your investigation into the problems occurring within the DHECC and you will pursue this matter as vigorously as you did the Andry/Lerner, Sutton, Reitano, Thonn matter.  

Thank you for your consideration and please contact me if I can be of assistance on the matter.

Sincerely,

Jason Berry, Independent, Investigative Reporter,

The American Zombie

ashedambala@gmail.com

(504) 975-3922

cc:  The Honorable Carl J. Barbier

The Honorable Sally Shushan

Kenneth A. Polite, Jr, U.S. Attorney

Charles B. Plattsmier, Office of the Disciplinary Counsel

John G. Heyburn II, Chairman, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Calvin C. Fayard, Esq.

I am still researching the web of companies tying the Fayards and Maurin together.

I would like to ask any anon. who may be able to identify the claim number blacked-out in the email or any anon. who may have direct information identifying which claim Fayard had expedited, please email me or make an anonymous comment with the information.

Thanks.

DHECC: Up is down

Forgive my confusion, I was going back through the fairness hearing transcript over the weekend and I ran across Mr. Juneau's testimony to the court regarding the success rate of the claims process....here is that conversation between Judge Carl Barbier and Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau:

THE COURT: Have you ever before, either as a lawyer or

as a claims administrator, seen a program where, in advance of

even court approval, whether or not the court has approved this

settlement, there is a claims administration office set up, and

claims are being paid?

MR. PATRICK JUNEAU: No, sir. I can tell you, not one

case, and I think I've been maybe a special master 40 or

45 times, from California, to the East Coast, to Minnesota, I

have never, ever been in a case and never heard of a case --

there may be one, but not to my knowledge -- that ever

authorized the processing and payment of claims before a

fairness hearing. This is the first. This is the first case

I've ever been involved in.

Which means you're a year ahead of the learning

curve and a year ahead of the timeline in getting the money

out. That's number one.

The second part of your question was, in terms of

when allocations go out and the acceptance rate, I have never

had, in all of the cases I've been involved in, nor any of the

ones that I have knowledge of, have approached that acceptance

rate.

THE COURT: How would you compare this settlement

program, from your perspective being involved in this one and

being involved in other ones, in terms of the speed, I guess,

with which it has started, got up and running, and the speed

with which it's paying claims?

MR. PATRICK JUNEAU: Well, in the railroad world, I

would say this is the Panama Limited of processes. I've never

been involved in a project that has gotten up this quick, had

the involvement with the volume we had to deal with, and to

either have started it earlier or gotten it paid this quickly.

It's been a remarkable experience for me.

Now, this is the response Mr. Juneau sent me as to why the PSC members' claims were expedited:

In response to your recent inquiry, we thought that you should be made aware of the actual facts. In the fall of 2012 the DHECC Program was fast approaching the fairness hearing and the opt-out deadline.  To avoid confusion as to who should opt-out versus who should stay in the class, it was important for the class as a whole to have a representative sample of paid claims across all of the claim types in order for them to assess which was the better path forward for them.  This could not be accomplished in the time required using the first-in/first-out (FIFO) method outlined in the Settlement Agreement, which method had been used for the summer of 2012, because many of the claims were incomplete and therefore not ready for processing.

After discussion with the Court, BP and the PSC, it was determined that a larger number of claims should be examined before the fairness hearing so that the Court, the parties, objectors and claimants could see how the settlement program was working.  As noted above, since the program had encountered problems with a lot of the claims not having complete documentation it was difficult to come up with claims that could be analyzed and determined, so a sample of sufficiently documented claims was needed.

So I'm a little confused. No...I'm very confused.

In the fairness hearing, Mr. Juneau told the judge that everything was going just swimmingly.  In his response to me he states that there were so many problems with incomplete claims coming in that they had to expedite the PSC claims to use them as samples for the fairness hearing.

Nowhere, absolutely nowhere in the fairness hearing can I find any mention of the results of the purported "sampling" initiative.

So far I have not received a reply from the Claims Office in my request for the minutes entry of the conversation which they said took place between the Claims Office, the PSC, BP and the court.  It is my understanding that if any conversation took place with the court, there must be a minutes entry.

If I don't receive a reply from the CA, I'm going to make the request for the minutes to the court (Judge Barbier) and ask him if he was aware that the PSC claims were expedited.  Hopefully we can get some answers. 

DHECC : Almost a smoking gun...perhaps a mushroom cloud

Last night I spent a lot of time going through the recent filings by Christine Reitano, Lionel Sutton and the Andry Law Firm, I wanted to make sure I read between the lines, detected any nuance, etc.

There is so much to point out that I'm going to break it up over multiple posts but I want to start with what I think is a bomb that Sutton dropped on page six of his filing:

Sutton Dec. 18 filing

....read this:

Perhaps more significant, while discussing the Thonn claim, Freeh noted that he discovered a second law firm that submitted at least four claims with tax returns more favorable than trip tickets.  (The very same issue that he uses with regard to the Thonn claim to accuss Sutton, Andry and Lerner of corruption and the recommendation that each be prevented from representing claimants).  In those four claims, Freeh found that the tax returns resulted in pay outs of as much as 114% greater.  Unbelievably, Freeh did not identify the second law firm or the claimants, made no allegations of corrruption and made no recommendation that the second law firm be prevented from representing claimants.  If the second law firm improperly manipulated data to the benefit of their private clients and to the detriment of their class clients, the possibility that the law firm is a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, mandates disclosure, not cover up.

Emphasis theirs

Whoop....there it is!  Whoop...there it is!

It's pretty clear Sutton knows who the page 60 firm is and he's all but telling us as much in this filing. I think he also rightfully points out that what he's being accused of is pale in comparison to what the page 60 firm may have done, especially if it's a PSC firm.

Sutton even goes so far as to use the term "cover up" to point out that Freeh had no qualms naming himself, Reitano and the Andry Firm as well as the claim, Thonn, in his accusations of misconduct. But for some reason Freeh did not identify the page 60 firm or the claims this firm allegedly manipulated.

This is huge....huge....I've said from the beginning that if a PSC firm had manipulated the claims process in any way.... selling access to the "formula", expediting their personal claims ahead of the other class claimants, or manipulating the actual claims to game the system they themselves created...Humpty Dumpty is going to come crashing down and all the King's men won't be able to put him back together again.

According to Sutton's filing it appears this is exactly what happened.

I've been digging a lot on this issue and I think I have pretty good idea of what the fraudulent "manipulation" of the claims process by the unnamed firm may have been.  It involves seafood claims, particularly shrimp, and Sutton even mentions this in the paragraph above.

It involves the process by which shrimper's assessed their losses.  There are basically two ways to assess this, tax returns and "trip tickets".  The trip tickets are basically a written record of how many pounds of shrimp a fisherman brings in to market on each fishing expedition.

According to the formula for the settlement, there are "multipliers" assigned to each settlement amount pending the pounds in shrimp each shrimper produced in the years previous to the spill.  So let's say there is a 1.5 multiplier on 49,999 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year but for 50,000 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year you get a 2.5 multiplier.  Obviously, the difference in the payout is substantial.

Now imagine a husband and wife shrimp team, or even partners in a shrimp boat enterprise, using multiple boats to fish.  Let's say the husband produced 45,000 lbs. in 2009 and the wife produced 35,000 lbs.  If the law firm shifts 5000 lbs. in shrimp tickets to the husband, the husband gets bumped up to the 2.5 multiplier while the wife still gets her 1.5 multiplier.

The numbers I'm using above are hypothetical and I'm still not sure exactly how the multipliers work in respect to pounds of shrimp.  There is also another qualifier...boat size:



Still, you can see how the system is set up to be gamed if you know the ins and outs.

Another major issue to consider is that the seafood claims are a capped fund so after all the claims are paid out, any excess funds are paid out pro rata.  That means if some of the claimants were gaming the system, per their law firms, and getting more than they deserved they were doing so at the expense of the other fisherman in the settlement.  It's not like it was a harmless scam that only affected BP's coffers.

That issue takes on even more gravitas if the law firm manipulating the claims is a PSC firm because not only did the Plantiff Steering Committee create the claims process from the beginning, they have a fiduciary duty to represent all of the claimants in the MDL (multi-district litigation) case, not just their private claimants.  Therefore, they have robbed their MDL-assigned clients in order to pay their favored, private clients, hence themselves, more money.

Aside from criminal charges and potential disbarment, both BP and the class claimants may have a massive malpractice suit against this PSC firm...if indeed it is a PSC firm that submitted the fraudulent claims.

Why would Freeh not name this firm?  Is Barbier, perhaps, protecting the firm?

What's interesting is that, with this week's legal filings, there seems to be a sudden change in the court's stonewalling towards those accused in the Freeh report.  Magistrate judge Shushan released these responses to this week's filings today:

Order re Andry Motion to Compel  

Paw Affidavit

It appears the court is now willing to provide the accused with at least some of the evidence acquired by Freeh that led to the accusations in the report.  What's even more intriguing to me is the testimony and evidence the court doesn't seem to want to reveal...I'll get to that in the next post.

Sometimes things you thought you buried....

Last week both Christine Reitano and the Andry Law firm filed motions in Judge Barbier's court to have their cases removed from the Eastern District and unconsolidated from the BP Multi-district litigation case.

Andry motion to modify

Andry memo in Support of motion to modify

Reitano motion to Reallot

Reitano Memo in Support to Unconsolidate

Barbier immediately denied the motions:

Barbier denial to Reitano motion

Barbier denial to Andry Law Firm motion

And as I reported previously, Barbier has stayed Reitano's breach of contract suit:

Barbier motion to stay Reitano lawsuit

A federal judge has a lot of power...in the U.S. court system that is.  He/she has the ability to seal documents, hide testimony and discovery, even interrupt or deny the due process of justice which by law should be afforded to the accused.  I remember my journalism law professor at Ole Mis, Jere Hoar, telling our class that in many ways a federal judge is more powerful than a seated president .  I didn't understand what he meant at the time but I fully understand it now.

But I also understand something else, despite the best laid plans of mice, men and federal judges...truth has a way of bubbling up through the cracks.  And there is another court in this country other than the U.S. Court system....a figurative one that's dictated by the first amendment.  In that court, a federal judge is not omnipotent.  

DHECC - Are Juneau's days numbered?

So much to talk about with the DHECC...where to begin?

Let's start with this James Varney editorial that came out weekend before last.

A trial lawyer web entangles the BP settlement:  James Varney

This whole editorial appears to be a plant that was given to Varney in order to set up an ensuing effort to remove Pat Juneau from the Claims Office.  I wouldn't mind it that much but Varney seems to have only a half-ass idea of what he's writing about.  Juneau is not a trail attorney, he's a defense attorney.

Also this pargraph:

In addition, the things Freeh did outline - Sutton's failure to disclose a financial interest he and his wife, Christine Reitano (herself a lawyer on Juneau's staff prior to being dismissed), had with a filing claimant and other shenanigans by trial lawyers - served to cast a dubious light on the proceedings thus far.

This has been refuted by both Sutton and Reitano...they both claim the Thonn claim was disclosed to Juneau.  Varney stated they didn't disclose the claim as fact, not an allegation.

 I'm also curious what Varney means by "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  What the fuck does that mean?

The sentence implies that Reitano had something to do with "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  I have read the Freeh report, the Andry filings and Reitano's breach of contract suit and I don't have any idea what he's talking about unless he's referring to the unnamed law firm on Page 60 of the report.

I want to pause make an observation about the TP before I continue.  Why is the first report of this story in the Time-Picayune coming from an editorialist?  This column is an obvious plant that wreaks of an agenda.

I have pretty good idea who Varney got the information from and why it was published ahead of the second Freeh report's release but why aren't these issues actually being "reported" by the TP?  They're letting Varney break (incorrectly I might add) one of the biggest stories in the region?  Why isn't an actual reporter being assigned to this story?

The Freeh report should be coming out any day and judging from Varney's proxy-mouthpiece-editorial it's rather apparent it will most likely target Juneau.

Aside from Varney's article, an even bigger indicator that Juneau is in hot water occurred on October 30th when Judge Barbier appointed Court-Designated Neutrals over the Business Economic Loss (BEL) Program.  It's clearly a smack-down by Barbier and I believe a sign of darker days to come for Juneau.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Juneau's resignation tendered any day now.

Speaking of resignations, I think it would also be prudent to look at the resignation of Appeals Coordinator and son of Federal Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., David Duval, that occurred on October 7, 2013 and was first reported here on AZ.  Instead of running down all of the possibilities as to why Duval resigned, I'll refer you to the thread of questions posed by AZ commenter, Kevin, in this Comment Bump.  But mainly, I want to point out a comment in that comment bump:

Kevin said....
More questions Mr. Andry might have for Mr. Duval: 

Is an entity know as "Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc." named as a plaintiff in the class action case that produced the class action settlement 

Is Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. a "Class Representative" for the class action settlement being administered by the DHECC and CAO? 

Is any member of your family's law practice a director of Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc.?

Big frikkin' deal here, folks...believe me when I tell you...this is a big deal.  I am hoping we will find out more when Freeh releases the next report.

Here's another big deal from a Kevin comment:

Kevin said... 

On the subject of CPA's in the CAO, can any AZ reader shed some light on Danny Clavier's activities at the CAO? 

He was the former head of the Class Action Consulting section of Bourgeois Bennet ( where David Duval's aunt is a principal) and came out of "retirement" for a position with the CAO.  

I think we're about to find out more on this issue by the end of the week as well.

I believe the heads of Juneau, Duval and Clavier will most likely roll as a consequence of the next Freeh report.  Well, Duval's already has if he was indeed forced to resign as a result of the Freeh investigation.

But what I'm most curious about is if Freeh will finally name the mysterious law firm on page 60 of his original report that "may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  As I pointed out in the post linked above, the most likely suspect as to who this law firm is would be one of the Plaintiff Steering Committee firms.  I draw this conclusion because a PSC firm would have the most intimate knowledge of the claims process, how the CAO works and it also goes a long way to explaining why Freeh (and possibly Barbier) protected the firm's identity in the first report.

It begs the question, "How could a PSC firm have manipulated the claims process to get such massive overpayments?"  I suspect they could accomplish this by manipulating their knowledge of how the parameters were set for individual classifications and payouts.  After all, they are the ones that set the parameters and classifications to begin with.

I'm going to draw out a hypothetical scenario in a subsequent post on how the process may have been manipulated with claims filed by shrimpers but for now I want to stay focused on Barbier and the validity and implications of the Freeh investigation.

On November 7, Both BP and Patrick Juneau filed motions in federal court to have Christine Reitano's breech of contract lawsuit against the DHECC and BP removed from the state court.  The case was automatically assigned to Barbier and filed under MDL (multi-district litigation) status.  I thought the protocol for both filings should have been randomly assigned to judges but I called the Clerk of Court's office and they told me that they are under a mandate from the national MDL judicial panel to assign anything having to do with BP to Barbier.

This is a big issue because it will most likely bury the lawsuit for years and put a lid on any discovery that may have occurred in the case.

Barbier has also denied discovery to the three parties Freeh accused in his first report, Reitano, Sutton and the Andry Lerner law firm.  This has created a scenario where the court appointed special investigator has levied allegations against these three parties, even suggesting that the state and/or federal bar as well as the Dept. of Justice investigate the matter, however, the accused have no access to the evidence Freeh based the allegations on.  They have no avenue of recourse at all.

Apparently this isn't the first time this scenario has occurred with a Freeh investigation but in the Penn State Sandusky matter the tables were turned on Freeh:

Louis Freeh Fires Back at Graham Spanier for Lawsuit

“Spanier has not articulated — and cannot articulate — a single reason why he will be prejudiced if he is compelled merely to file a complaint backing his accusation,” the filing continued. “If Spanier does not file a complaint, [Freeh] will remain stuck in the untenable position of having Spanier’s broad accusation clouding their reputations without being able to defend themselves.”

The comment section is worth a 5 to 10 minute glance on that story.

This next Freeh report is going to be revealing not only by what he discloses but more importantly by what he may omit...namely the identity of the page 60 law firm.  It's going to reveal if this investigation is fo' true or if it is simply a PR witch hunt that was designed to offer up a few souls to the BP altar as an attempt at pacification.

I would also note that I requested an interview with David Odom, the CEO of the DHECC but I received no response.  I have some questions I'd like to ask him about his relationship with one of the court appointed vendors.  

Will Barbier do the right thing?

In the last post, I brought up the interesting point that in his report on the DHECC, Louis Freeh suggested an unnamed law firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  I questioned the fact that Freeh had no qualms about naming Lionel Sutton, Christine Reitano (Sutton's wife) and the Andry Lerner law firm in his report but for some unknown reason he didn't release the name of the law firm on page 60.

This is a pretty big deal because he's effectively destroyed Sutton and Reitano's reputation by listing them both in the report.  Reitano has denied any wrongdoing and is now suing both Patrick Juneau and BP for defamation.  Why would Freeh name Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner but protect the identity of this firm?

I've been doing a lot of speculating with my legal-eagle readers and friends about why this firm went unnamed.  Here are some of our theories, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

- Freeh is continuing the investigation into the misconduct of the unnamed firm and was not ready to release their name at the time he published the report.

- The claim may be unsubstantiated and found to have been false upon further examination.

- The law firm may, in fact, be a PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) firm that used their position to manipulate the claims process to their advantage and get the increase in payments.  This may simply be such a huge can of worms that Judge Barbier had Freeh back off the firm in order to preserve the integrity of the Claims Office.

- Freeh may not be as autonomous as he pretends and the law firm had enough stroke with him and/or Judge Barbier to keep themselves out of the frying pan.

- Barbier may have given the law firm the opportunity to pay back the overpayments in order to not be exposed and mar the Claims Office.

Here's what I think...I think it's most likely a combination of the last three theories.  The first question is what law firm would have enough stroke within the DHECC to manipulate the claims to get a 114% overpayment.  I think that it almost has to be, without a doubt, a PSC firm.  I also think that it would almost have to be a local, Louisiana-based firm.  That narrows the possibilities down to what?  About 9 of the 12 original firms?  There's Calvin Fayard, Steve Herman, Jim Roy, Motley Rice, Micheal C. Palmintier, Paul M. Sterbcow, Matthew E. Lundy, Duke Williams,  and Phillip Cossich.  You can check out this post I made for a graphic map of the PSC.

I honestly don't know, 100%, who the firm is but I have about a 90% hunch of who it might be.  If I'm right it would also explain why local media outlets, especially the Times-Picayune, are virtually ignoring this story and the past two legal filings by Andry Lerner and Reitano.  In fact, they aren't even reporting on the matter, themselves, they're just reposting AP reports.  Nola.com posted the Reitano AP report, left it up for about two hours and immediately pushed it to archives.  Why is the AP the only entity reporting what may be the biggest story in the city at the moment?  Maybe The Advocate and Nola.com are working on it but I suspect the story is purposely being muted because of who the unnamed firm may be.

NOTE:  The AP story said Reitano's suit was a defamation suit...it's not.  Her suit is actually for breach of contract.  

For the moment, let's assume Freeh's unnamed firm is a PSC firm.

Please note that I have continually addressed issues that have been reported to me with some of the PSC firms, particularly those who were also placed on the Wisner settlement with BP for the City of New Orleans.  If you haven't seen the issues I have brought up, here are some links you should read now:

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

American Zombie: Thieves in The Temple

American Zombie: A little help

American Zombie: "Complaints"

American Zombie: Item # 2

American Zombie: Sounds of the Jungle

Aside from the clear collusion between Steve Herman and BP lawyers regarding the Wisner property I laid out in email chains in the first link, Wisner Part 2, I have been researching two overarching claims of wrongdoing by some of the PSC firms:

1.  Some of the PSC law firms used their clout to push their own private claims ahead of other claims being processed in the DHECC.

2.  At least one of the PSC law firms sold the "formula" to the claims process before the DHECC office even opened in order to give an advantage to law firms who wanted to get their claims processed first.

On item number two, I have been very close to getting a source to go on the record about being approached to purchase this "formula" but ultimately they decided not to.  I'm still working on that item though, so don't give up on me just yet.  I have no doubt this allegation is true.

The thing is, if any of these claims are proven against a PSC firm, including the 114% overpayment alleged by Freeh, this could lead to catastrophic legal implications.

The reason this is such a big deal, and the reason I've been pounding the drum about it for so long, is that these PSC lawyers were appointed to represent the claimants in the DHECC and the people of the Gulf who were affected by the BP spill...people who are still suffering from the BP spill.  Many of these people have filed claims and still not been paid.  Some have been waiting a year or more.

As we all know, BP is trying to shut the DHECC down and kill the settlement completely.  If that were to happen, all the folks with claims left queued in the Claims Office are most likely shit outta luck.  If a PSC firm got their clients paid first, and overpaid, they are directly responsible for dissing the claimants who may not get paid.  I'm not even sure what happens at that point.  Could the remaining claimants file a class action malpractice suit against one or more of the PSC firms?  Not sure if that's legally possible but it seems as if it should be.

I suspect there is a massive suppression campaign taking place right now to try and squash this genie back in the bottle.  I hope that doesn't happen.  Not only would that not be fair to the people actually named in the Freeh report, Reitano, Sutton and Andry Lerner, it wouldn't be fair to the hard working people of the Gulf Coast who were devastated by BP's greed and incompetence.

The one person who must know the answers to these questions is Federal Judge Carl Barbier.  Let's hope he does the right thing.  We've seen too many rich, wealthy, fat cats get away with crimes in this city in the past couple years...crimes that have a direct impact on our society.  I hope that pattern doesn't continue here.  

Freeh is challenged again

One week after the Andry Lerner law firm filed a memo in federal court refuting Louis Freeh's accusations of misconduct in respect to the BP settlement, another attorney accused of misconduct, a former high level employee of the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC), has filed suit for breach of contract against BP, Orleans Parish and Patrick Juneau, the DHECC administrator.

Christine Reitano is the wife of Lionel Sutton, another lawyer who was also working for the DHECC.  Both Reitano and Sutton were called out in Louis Freeh's report for misconduct and potential illicit activity along with the Andry Lerner law firm.  Sutton resigned from the DHECC in the wake of the allegations, Reitano did not resign but was then fired by Juneau.

 Reitano was accused by Freeh of accepting a commission for a referral on a claim, the "Thonn Claim", that she referred to the Andry Lerner law firm, after she had accepted a position to work in the Claims Center for Patrick Juneau.

In this filing, Reitano states that she never received any commission for the referral and the evidence on which Freeh based his allegation, a deposition by Andry Lerner attorney, Christina Mancuso, was misinterpreted by Freeh.

Reitano claims that she disclosed her involvement with the claimant, Thonn, before she accepted the position with the DHECC and that Juneau was made aware of the existing relationship.  When Reitano took the job at the Claims Center, the Thonn claim was made known to Juneau but did not appear to be an issue.

The Freeh report also notes that the Thonn claim was examined internally by the DHECC in January of 2013, well before Freeh was brought on board to conduct his investigation.  Apparently, the matter was not acted upon at that time.

Freeh also claimed that Reitano used her position in the office to try and procure a job for her husband, Lionel Sutton, with the Garden City Group, a court vendor of the DHECC.  Reitano maintains that the matter was discussed but was never acted upon after it was vetted with the Claims Center and deemed unethical.  Reitano states that Juneau was made aware of this issue as well.

Here is the petition.  I also have the exhibits but I need to re-compress them before I upload them.

Read through the petition....I will comment later.  This is an interesting turn of events that may have opened up a can of worms in that she has filed against BP, not just Juneau.  If this goes into discovery and she is deposed on record....there could be some sphincterific panic among some of the members of the DHECC office and the PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) crew.

Remember that Freeh suggested potential misconduct by another law firm on page 60 of his report. He states that this firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  What's interesting is that this law firm's identity was not disclosed in the report but Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner were.  Why wasn't this second firm named?

We'll take a closer look in the next post.

DHECC - Comment Bump, October 19, 2013

Kevin has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Freeh's interests may not be so free": 

Just a few personal thoughts on what kind of questions Mr. Andry might want to ask the witnesses, assuming he is granted access to them:

Did David Duval resign for any reasons connected to the information appearing in the Freeh report?

Is he prevented from assisting anyone in bringing BP claims?

Is he working for the family firm in Houma?

How many BP claims has the family firm brought for others?

Did he work or help or have lunch with anyone on any of those?

Did he have any involvement in any BP claims where the CPA firm Bourgeois Bennett was also involved (his aunt is a principal in that firm)?

Same question for Duval Shearer CPA?

Is David Duval involved with the Crescent City Group?

Who hired Kirk Fisher and why?

Who hired David Odom and why?

Who hired all the other MBAs from the Class of 2012?

Did the MBAs have preferential knowledge of or access to these claims center jobs?

Were there any other applicants for these claims center jobs now held by the MBAs?

Were any other people interviewed for these jobs?

Do the MBAs work for the Crescent City Group?

What kind of work is done by the MBAs and does it take someone with an MBA to do it?

Is Michael Olinde the treasurer of Crescent City Group?

Did Kirk Fisher know Michael Olinde before 2010? 

Did David Odom know Michael Olinde before 2010? Did they graduate from high school together? Before 2010, did they invest any money together?

Last question (for now): What is it y’all say I did wrong, again?

I’m wondering if Pat Juneau is one of the “other persons” to whom Mr. Andry wants access. He does list Pat’s son, Michael.